Barack Obama is NOT a “natural born Citizen of the United States” and is thus constitutionally ineligible to be the President and Commander in Chief of our military. Obama was born to a FOREIGN NATIONAL FATHER who was NEVER a U.S. Citizen nor was Obama’s father even an immigrant to the USA or even a permanent resident in the USA. For no other U.S. President in the history of the nation since the founding generation (who were exempt from the natural born Citizen clause in the U.S. Constitution via a grandfather clause in Article II Section 1) was that the case, i.e., having a foreign national father who was never a U.S. Citizen or even an immigrant to this country. Obama being seated as the putative president is an outrageous violation of Article II Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, the presidential eligibility clause. Obama was not born with sole allegiance to the USA. Sole allegiance and unity of Citizenship at birth was the goal and purpose for putting the natural born Citizen clause into Article II Section 1 of the Constitution as to who could serve as president once the founding generation has passed away. Obama (II) was born a British Subject via his foreign national father Obama (Sr.) who was a British Subject. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen of the United States” to constitutional standards since he was born with dual allegiance and citizenship. The founders and framers did not want anyone with foreign allegiance to ever get command of our military, i.e., be the president. Obama is constitutionally not eligible to be president and commander in chief of our military.

Like this:

Related

8 Responses

Who told you that a Natural Born Citizen requires two citizen parents? They are is wrong. The meaning of Natural Born at the time that the US Constitution was written referred to the PLACE of birth. It comes from the common law, not from Vattel.

“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President…”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

The American Constitution
Charles Herman Pritchett – 1968: “Every person born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen and, of course, a natural-born citizen. “

The American Review, Johns Hopkins University, European Center of American Studies – 1960: “The Constitutional qualifications for President are astonishingly simple: he must be born in the United States and be thirty-five years of age. These are the only qualifications…”

“And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.” James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW, pg. 258 (1826)

Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

“Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”

Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983) (child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

“Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”

The authorities cited say that the original meaning of Natural Born Citizen refers to the place of birth, not to the parents. Yes Vattel said parents, but he is not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers, while the common law is mentioned about twenty times.

So, who told you that “A Natural Born Citizen is one born to two American citizen parents on American soil”, and why did you believe him or her?

…the only time the US Supreme Court ever did define the class of persons who were POTUS eligible under Article 2 Section 1 was in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), wherein it was held:

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.
///////
The Supreme Court said it!!

What you need to read is the FULL quotation from Minor v. Happersett, not the edited version.

It says:

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

The key sentence is the last one: ” For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”

That is the court’s way of saying that it is NOT making a decision on the matter. When a court says that everyone agreed that X+Y makes a Natural Born Citizen, but some held that possibly only Y worked, and “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts”—that is NOT a decision.

That is why no legal scholar holds that Minor v. Happersett is a precedent. And that is why dozens upon dozens of legal and constitutional scholars hold that:

“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President…”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

And it can be shown that the writers of the US Constitution always used the term Natural Born the way that it was used in the common law, referring to the place of birth, and no example can be found of a writer of the US Constitution using the term the way that Vattel did.

I read the entire document and it says what I quoted above. I don’t really care what you believe, in error, I just know the truth and the truth is that Mr. obama is NOT a legal President and I will never acknowledge his as such. He was born a british subject and as far as anyone knows he still is.

A Natural Born Citizen requires two American citizen parents and to be born on American soil. John McCain was NOT eligible to be President either. I don’t really care what anyone else says, I have read the Constitution and was taught the Constitution in school (unlike today). I KNOW that to be a NBC you MUST have two citizen parents and be born on American soil. Mr. obama did not have an American Citizen father and no one really knows just where he was born.

So, take your false liberal views somewhere else. I’m not listening and prefer that any friends of mine not have to put up with your lies.

Re: “A Natural Born Citizen requires two American citizen parents and to be born on American soil.”

Who told you that?

Re: “I have read the Constitution and was taught the Constitution in school (unlike today). ”

So was I, and I was taught that the original meaning of Natural Born–as was the case in the common law–referred to the place of birth.

That is why the Heritage Society had this in its book:

““Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President….”—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

Further proof of this is an actual quotation from about the time that the US Constitution was written:

“Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

As you can see, that refers ONLY to the place of birth. Natural Born Citizens were “those born within the state.”

And here is an example from 1829:

“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

That is why Obama was sworn in by the Chief Justice of the United States. That is why not one of the current Republican candidates for president claim that Obama is not a Natural Born US Citizen. That is why not one member of the 535 members of Congress (most of whom are lawyers) has stated that Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen or that the Minor v. Happersett case rules that two citizen parents are required.